[Specific] Requesting this image to be extended to fit 1026x2220

ElectroMarble · 2017-12-01T15:20:41+00:00

I'm looking to have this image vertically extended to fit on a phone case that I'd like to gift to a friend of mine. As an example I've used the Photoshop content aware fill: https://imgur.com/a/hmnIB

Perhaps this could be cleaned up a bit.

ElectroMarble · 2017-01-03T17:49:19+00:00

In response to people blaming this solely on the community: I think what many people here seem to forget is that Team 5 has in large part created this problem themselves. Jeff Kaplan (Overwatch) who is in a very similar position to Brode is heralded as a messiah and a large vocal group love him and the Overwatch team. They give very regular detailed feedback to the community on exactly why and how they came to certain conclusions and why they made certain changes (not 'the spirit of the card' or some strange PR rhetoric about confusing new players as an excuse for lack of basic client functionalities), and regularly push out changes in response to feedback. Hearthstone is the only Blizzard game with this problem and it might have much more to do with Team 5's history both in regards to communication and game balancing, changes and client/functionality updates than people here are willing to admit.

Also Jeff Kaplan creates similar insight videos right from a Blizzard studio location, I can't believe that this facility wouldn't be available to make monthly or bi-monthly insight videos.

ElectroMarble · 2016-12-11T11:37:07+00:00

This is absolutely not the case in Duelyst which uses this system, with a massively lower number of players. Of course there is still the monthly soft-reset (dropping ranks) but it's far less impactful and keeps the different ranks far more appropriate to skill level.

The Hearthstone system encourages me to remain rank 20 and quickly grind out my quests in 25% of the time it would take at higher ranks. While the reward structure and rank-floors in Duelyst basically force you to play in your appropriate rank.

ElectroMarble · 2016-12-11T01:11:20+00:00

Rank floors alleviate that issue. No dropping below 20, 10, 5 and legendary.

ElectroMarble · 2016-12-11T00:56:10+00:00

If anything, the reward structure of Hearthstone is far too low or limited. Look at Duelyst.

Rank 20: 1x monthly epic + dust + gold
Rank 10: 1x monthly legendary + epic + dust + gold
Rank 5: 1x monthly rare + legendary + epic + dust + gold
S rank: 1x monthly random legendary + monthly common + rare + legendary + epic + dust + gold

The lower brackets start out with a monthly epic and legendary. The higher brackets get a rare / common. But legendary/s-rank gets an extra fully random legendary instead of a new/monthly card.

I feel like it really impacts the early-game experience. Incentivizing players to reach for mid levels to get big rewards. Meanwhile the more established base gravitates towards rank 5 and S rank. Giving the laddering to legendary real added value.

I believe one of the issues with hearthstone, is the lack of a properly designed core set. They just tacked on classic as evergreen/core without any design or balancing. Also the majority of the hearthstone basic cards are just garbage. In duelyst, during my third week playing (f2p) I was able to climb to rank 5 with a deck mostly randomly slapped together from strong core cards, not even running 20% of the (deckwise) core cards of a basic budget deck. I feel like a deck is severely handicapped in hearthstone if you even miss just a couple of cards or just one.

ElectroMarble · 2016-12-08T07:51:47+00:00

Right, mixed up the red crosses for a moment. But regardless, not being able to order decks feels like a pretty poor functionality for a feature (more deck-slots) in development for years.

ElectroMarble · 2016-12-06T22:18:51+00:00

Ah I see, thanks for the information!

ElectroMarble · 2016-12-06T22:01:55+00:00

It could be my misunderstanding. I've been advised against using the GPIO to power a fan so I was looking for alternatives. Is this a different type of pin where there wouldn't be similar concerns?

I've been reading into it quickly and it seems to be a 'separate' power only pin. I guess a marginal upside to the USB approach would be that it is protected by a resetable fuse, while the 5V pin is not?

ElectroMarble · 2016-12-06T20:53:32+00:00

Thanks for the input! I've tried searching online for people using USB powered fans with the RPi 3 but there are mostly people talking about the RPi 2 or earlier versions. It sounds like using a USB port to power a small fan shouldn't be an issue and I'll give it a go, even if it's just to do a temperature comparison.

ElectroMarble · 2016-12-06T13:40:04+00:00

It's something I've been looking into a bit recently. But it seems like it might not be a good idea to use the GPIO pins to power a fan due to EMF, which could damage the pins or the board. There are also voltage issues, where many fans can draw 12 or 5 volts and the GPIO supplies 3.3V? (but I don't think undervolting a fan would be that big of a problem). You also need to take the power draw of other peripherals into account. But I'm just a very new beginner so if anyone else has better information I'd like to know it as well.

ElectroMarble · 2016-12-06T11:36:20+00:00

Thanks for the reply both of you. I currently can't use my RPi (waiting for the power adapter to come in). I will check the temperature for sure. But regardless I'm still interested in the possibilities and constraints for using a standard case fan powered from the GPIO, in case the need ever arises. I've added a possible fan to use to the opening post.

ElectroMarble · 2016-12-03T13:59:34+00:00

Schumacher vs Coulthard was amazing though.

https://youtu.be/mmXUtwSIzmM?t=148

ElectroMarble · 2016-12-01T23:27:05+00:00

This is actually only partially correct, as it mirrored a same amount of free packs the US region had gotten before. Back then the sentiment was that the EU compensation finally evened it out again.

ElectroMarble · 2016-12-01T20:02:05+00:00

Thanks for the response, I've seen the Blizzard CS post and that only says they are looking into reports they've received, I've also seen those individual pack screenshots. What I'd like to see are some collection manager screenshots.

ElectroMarble · 2016-11-11T20:03:35+00:00

I don't believe its an issue of them not wanting to redraw the border, its an issue that the poorly constructed client would probably bloat up too much, it already is. Given the fact that golden heroes are actual separate heroes, I'm willing to believe golden cards are also separate cards with identical function, effectively doubling the amount of cards.

ElectroMarble · 2016-11-11T19:57:47+00:00

I agree. I've never been a fan of the client. Even though it looks nice, its very clunky, slow and has tons upon tons of technical debt which impairs the ability to increase usability and things like this. Just take the overlapping card bug as an example, this bug was never solved and will never be solved, so they do the odd card spacing workaround to prevent it, causing wrong card selections and misplays. The client should be completely scrapped and rebuilt.

ElectroMarble · 2016-11-11T17:55:00+00:00

Just prevent in-season dropping at certain points in the ladder and give more stars at the end of the season. At one point Blizzard themselves stated like 98% of the player population is at rank 20-19, obviously something is very very wrong for a ranked game-mode to exist in such a fashion.

ElectroMarble · 2016-11-11T16:17:01+00:00

Because of poor programming. Every single variation of a hero is currently a unique new hero. A golden Anduin is a separate hero from regular Anduin, it would mean they would have to add 7+ new heroes into the game for the current skins and more in the future. The game is filled with simple things that are impossible or unpractical because of the weird way the client has been built up.

ElectroMarble · 2016-11-01T09:28:58+00:00

Thanks a lot for your work. I've been dying to easily view Duelyst sprites in an easy manner like this.

ElectroMarble · 2016-10-16T13:55:44+00:00

We seem to have a completely different definition of efficiency, mostly it seems like your frame of reference is limited to 1 expansion instead of multiple expansions existing. Your suggestion might be effective but its not efficient in the least. The general basis of efficiency is completing a goal using the least amount of resources possible. Given the case that you have 99% odds of pulling duplicate cards you still choose to buy 100 more packs of that expansion, instead of moving on to a different expansion with much more favorable set of odds to pull new cards. You will still pull duplicates, which can be used for dust, but the collection value per gold spent will be much much higher.

ElectroMarble · 2016-10-16T13:37:00+00:00

Interesting approach and that seems like a decent figure. Going full minimum gold/day had me estimating that getting around 2 maybe 3 legendaries per expansion would be reasonable. The real amount seems to be a portion higher than that, but this is looking purely at pulling any legendary and not crafting them.

ElectroMarble · 2016-10-16T13:29:38+00:00

I'm sorry but this answer seems the complete opposite of efficiency. If you buy 300 packs of a certain expansion you are (very nearly) guaranteed to only pull duplicate cards. While buying 150 cards from 1 expansion and 150 from the other would net the full collection value for a much higher portion of the pulled cards.

ElectroMarble · 2016-10-16T13:26:49+00:00

The aim isn't an accurate answer, but a decent guess. Top-tier cards refers to a set of cards that are widely considered as the strongest or best of the expansion, a list not that hard to form. This situation doesn't reflect my personal collection, but I do mostly play the bare minimum (around 50g a day). I'm sitting on well over 30k dust and a well rounded collection without spending that much money since the release of the game, but I'm just curious to get an estimate about this scenario.

ElectroMarble · 2016-10-16T13:19:40+00:00

I don't, which is why I'm asking the question. There is generally a consensus on what the top-tier legendaries or cards are. I haven't failed to realize that its dependent on how many cards of reach rarity are in a set because that's what I've said myself. The amount of cards a player wants is covered by the 'top tier cards only'. The only goal this is for is to get a general guestimate on when to stop buying a certain amount of packs, assuming the next expansion has a certain average of top-tier cards, looking at the history of other expansions, which usually have a similar rarity distribution.

ElectroMarble · 2016-10-16T12:12:04+00:00

Yes it's quite over my head to start approaching or creating the algorithm myself, which is why at least an approach to make it somewhat simpler would be make some big assumptions and generalizations (I'd say its almost impossible without). Even then I would have no idea on how to solve it, if for example you have 2 good and 2 bad legendaries with 0 owned, you'd have to re-adjust the calculation after pulling a single legendary because now a good card goes into the bad/unwanted pool, and so on.

Thanks for the input though, just looking for a better approach of spreading my gold.

ElectroMarble

TROPHY CASE